The Zeiss is a tad sharper at 2.8, but they are equal by f/4. Though this could be due to TDP having a bad copy.

The Zeiss also has a bit less distortion, but it's also 7% less wide so it's not apple to apples.

I definitely don't see $2,600 worth of improvement.

"The Zeiss is a tad sharper"....LOL..based on the corner resolution in The Digital Picture comparison tool, I would think that you may be able to shoot sharper with a plastic lens rather than the SamYang...at ALL apertures... I don't think it is worth $359. ...but hey whatever makes you happy...you are smiling!!!! Maybe around f/8 the SamYang is tolerable.

I don't know what to make of Bryan's review and/or charts (he has never actually reviewed the lens), although I have been told that there are two variations/optical formulas (older and newer) of this lens, but my own review along with that of others say that the new version is in fact basically as sharp as the Canon 14L and is one of the sharpest wide angle optics available for a Canon lens.

I've used about five different wide angle options, and the copy of the Rokinon that I have is so much sharper at all apertures than anything that I have used before that there is no comparison. I have no doubt that the Zeiss is better still, but as it is about 10x the price...

P.S. The Rokinon blows the Canon "L" wide angle zooms away in sharpness in every detail.

So Dustin...I believe you...do you think that The Digital Picture is using the same lens that you have or something different? I also, really respect Roger at Lens Rental...Did you pay $359 for your lens? ....and it is sharper than the Canon? REALLY?

I'm generally a Zeiss fan myself but the Nikon 14-24 (w/adapter) represents a much better value and is sharper across the frame when stopped down vs the Zeiss.

I have both,, the Zeiss is sharper and has better colour and contrast (although at certain apertures the Nikkor is better at the edges.. but not by much),it also has no problems with focus shift,the same can't be said about the nikkor..

+1. I have the Zeiss 15mm and did a fair amount of testing against a couple of UWA Canon lenses and found the Zeiss to be unmatched. The testing process for me was using stars, as they tend to show coma/CA/spherical aberrations very clearly. The benefits of the Zeiss for me were:- Sharp at f2.8 as I don't have the luxury of stopping down for star pic's (a slight amount of coma in the extreme corners).- A hard infinity stop. Much easier to use when fumbling around in the dark.

Coma, in terrestrial use, translates as image softness. But, as has been pointed out, stopping down will reduce that.

The Zeiss is a tad sharper at 2.8, but they are equal by f/4. Though this could be due to TDP having a bad copy.

The Zeiss also has a bit less distortion, but it's also 7% less wide so it's not apple to apples.

I definitely don't see $2,600 worth of improvement.

"The Zeiss is a tad sharper"....LOL..based on the corner resolution in The Digital Picture comparison tool, I would think that you may be able to shoot sharper with a plastic lens rather than the SamYang...at ALL apertures... I don't think it is worth $359. ...but hey whatever makes you happy...you are smiling!!!! Maybe around f/8 the SamYang is tolerable.

I don't know what to make of Bryan's review and/or charts (he has never actually reviewed the lens), although I have been told that there are two variations/optical formulas (older and newer) of this lens, but my own review along with that of others say that the new version is in fact basically as sharp as the Canon 14L and is one of the sharpest wide angle optics available for a Canon lens.

I've used about five different wide angle options, and the copy of the Rokinon that I have is so much sharper at all apertures than anything that I have used before that there is no comparison. I have no doubt that the Zeiss is better still, but as it is about 10x the price...

P.S. The Rokinon blows the Canon "L" wide angle zooms away in sharpness in every detail.

So Dustin...I believe you...do you think that The Digital Picture is using the same lens that you have or something different? I also, really respect Roger at Lens Rental...Did you pay $359 for your lens? ....and it is sharper than the Canon? REALLY?

I have been told since doing my review that there was an earlier version of the lens that lacked the UMC element as a part of the optical formula and was significantly inferior to the newer version optically. That being said, I went and checked Bryan's lens sharpness tool again and his does say UMC. His chart shows a significant difference between the 14L and the Samyang, particularly in the corners. But his results don't seem to match that of other very reliable reviewers, and doesn't agree with my own results, either.

I don't know how to account for his results. I think Bryan is a great reviewer, but I don't feel like his chart results reflect my own experience. His results show that the 17-40L is sharper at equal apertures, but I just dumped my own 17-40L because the results were so inferior to my Rokinon.

Of particular interest in their sharpness testing; it unquestionably shows the Samyang as sharper (than the 14LII), even in the corners. Anyway, I can only chart it up to either sample variation or reviewing differences (which illustrates why it is important to read multiple reviews and then form your own conclusions).

I'm generally a Zeiss fan myself but the Nikon 14-24 (w/adapter) represents a much better value and is sharper across the frame when stopped down vs the Zeiss.

I have both,, the Zeiss is sharper and has better colour and contrast (although at certain apertures the Nikkor is better at the edges.. but not by much),it also has no problems with focus shift,the same can't be said about the nikkor..

+1. I have the Zeiss 15mm and did a fair amount of testing against a couple of UWA Canon lenses and found the Zeiss to be unmatched. The testing process for me was using stars, as they tend to show coma/CA/spherical aberrations very clearly. The benefits of the Zeiss for me were:- Sharp at f2.8 as I don't have the luxury of stopping down for star pic's (a slight amount of coma in the extreme corners).- A hard infinity stop. Much easier to use when fumbling around in the dark.

Coma, in terrestrial use, translates as image softness. But, as has been pointed out, stopping down will reduce that.

This is one significant advantage for the Zeiss. The Rokinon/Samyang is incredible in the coma department (a lot of "star guys" use it for that reason), but the distance scale is lousy on the Rokinon, and the lens focuses WAY beyond infinity. I essentially prefocus before I go out to do nightscapes.

I have been told since doing my review that there was an earlier version of the lens that lacked the UMC element as a part of the optical formula and was significantly inferior to the newer version optically. That being said, I went and checked Bryan's lens sharpness tool again and his does say UMC. His chart shows a significant difference between the 14L and the Samyang, particularly in the corners. But his results don't seem to match that of other very reliable reviewers, and doesn't agree with my own results, either.

I don't know how to account for his results. I think Bryan is a great reviewer, but I don't feel like his chart results reflect my own experience. His results show that the 17-40L is sharper at equal apertures, but I just dumped my own 17-40L because the results were so inferior to my Rokinon.

Of particular interest in their sharpness testing; it unquestionably shows the Samyang as sharper (than the 14LII), even in the corners. Anyway, I can only chart it up to either sample variation or reviewing differences (which illustrates why it is important to read multiple reviews and then form your own conclusions).[/quote]

I checked out that comparison on ephotozine....WOW...interesting ...I had read about the Rokinon(or whatever!!! LOL..as lens by many names..I am already suspicious!)...and the review was not good..and I dismissed it..I am too serious about my photography...but it is great to know that this is out there.... I am going to tell a friend about it.I totally agree with what you said at the end above...read up as much as you can...get the lens and test it out to make sure....It is all a lot of fun! Thanks for all the great info..as usual.

The Zeiss 15 is a wonderfully sharp Lens, I bought one a while back after seeing some of Sanj's Images with this Lens, love it, but. It's damn heavy, which you can live with, it's manual focus of course, again you can live with and I actually have grown to like Manual Focus Lenses again after buying this lens, but, what just seems dopy, is the non removable (without a lot of very scary effort) dumb assed Hood.

I eventually went and purchased the 17TSE (with the Wonderpana Filter Holder, so now I can use the 17 with all my Lee Filters, Yippee), now very seldom do I take the Zeiss out, I'de love to put the Zeiss 15 into my Underwater housing to replace the Canon 14f2.8 L II, but the dumb assed Hood precludes that. There isn't any doubt though that the Zeiss 15 is a much better Lens in all departments than the Canon 14, except for the dumb assed Hood.

Logged

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

I just rented the Canon 14L II, Canon 24L II, Canon 16-35L II, Canon 17-40L for a day and sent them back yesterday. I wanted to test them against my Samyang 14 and 24 (and Zeiss 21 for that matter)to be sure what I'd gathered already from images I've got from renting the Canon 14L II and Canon 24L II before I had either of these. All I could do was compare different scenes. Now I have them all compared same time/scene at a lot of things. It's pretty interesting but I have a ton of work ahead to get it all online. And I haven't even had a chance to look at much yet. Samyangs of course smoke Canon in coma. They also smoke them in CA. The Samyang 14 really hands the Canon 14L II its ass in resolution. Except in center I guess they are similar. I've had two of those now from lens rentals which tests them before they send them out. It's really clear what the results are now. I haven't looked enough yet but I was getting the impression the Samyang 24 was going to actually best the Canon too. Of course the primes make the 16-35 and 17-40 both look like S___ in the corners. Anyway figured I'd comment given the 14 Samyang comments. The vast majority of folks that get that lens seem to say the same thing, sharp sharp sharp. Even after one corrects the horrid ocean waves distortion.

When we are talking ultra-wide angle as in wider than 24mm, the best definitely is the 17mm TS-E. For interiors, architecture, etc. Plus, can still modify it to put graduated Lee/Cokin filters on it, unlike the 15mm with the fixed hood getting in the way. The 15mm doesn't even have the same color rendition as the 21mm zeiss and suffers in the corner sharpness, not to mention even with that so called "superb build" it still isn't weather sealed! The only thing going for it is the lower distortion, build, and zeiss naming. For zoom versatility, probably the Nikon 14-24.

The Zeiss 15 is a wonderfully sharp Lens, I bought one a while back after seeing some of Sanj's Images with this Lens, love it, but. It's damn heavy, which you can live with, it's manual focus of course, again you can live with and I actually have grown to like Manual Focus Lenses again after buying this lens, but, what just seems dopy, is the non removable (without a lot of very scary effort) dumb assed Hood.

I eventually went and purchased the 17TSE (with the Wonderpana Filter Holder, so now I can use the 17 with all my Lee Filters, Yippee), now very seldom do I take the Zeiss out, I'de love to put the Zeiss 15 into my Underwater housing to replace the Canon 14f2.8 L II, but the dumb assed Hood precludes that. There isn't any doubt though that the Zeiss 15 is a much better Lens in all departments than the Canon 14, except for the dumb assed Hood.

LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!

LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!

The attached is the "Dumb assed end"

I must admit I didn't research enough before I purchased, the Images from this Lens are 2nd to none among my ultra WA lenses, of which I own several, Canon 14f/2.8L II, Canon 8-15f/4, canon 17TSE, 14-24f/2.8 Nikon, Canon 15f/2.8.

With the exception of the 17TSE, all my WA lenses are purchased first for Underwater WA, secondary function, Landscape, but I sort of suck at Landscape.

I just couldn't imagine anyone handicapping a Lens by having a fixed Lens Hood like the Zeiss 15, in my view, "Dumb Assed".

And, after trying several Circular Polariser Filters it wasn't until I found the Heliopan Slim that I found a Polariser that didn't cause Vignetting, but that Heliopan cost $500 bucks.

Yes, as has been shown by others you can remove it, but after laying out 3k for a Lens anyone that brings a spanner or a screwdriver within 3 metres of this Lens while on my Camera, is a dead man, or women.

LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!

The attached is the "Dumb assed end"

I must admit I didn't research enough before I purchased, the Images from this Lens are 2nd to none among my ultra WA lenses, of which I own several, Canon 14f/2.8L II, Canon 8-15f/4, canon 17TSE, 14-24f/2.8 Nikon, Canon 15f/2.8.

With the exception of the 17TSE, all my WA lenses are purchased first for Underwater WA, secondary function, Landscape, but I sort of suck at Landscape.

I just couldn't imagine anyone handicapping a Lens by having a fixed Lens Hood like the Zeiss 15, in my view, "Dumb Assed".

And, after trying several Circular Polariser Filters it wasn't until I found the Heliopan Slim that I found a Polariser that didn't cause Vignetting, but that Heliopan cost $500 bucks.

Yes, as has been shown by others you can remove it, but after laying out 3k for a Lens anyone that brings a spanner or a screwdriver within 3 metres of this Lens while on my Camera, is a dead man, or women.

One that TDP forgets to mention is the Samyang 14mm for $300! Lots of distortion but barely any CA and really quite sharp indeed (other than sometimes with fine details against bright white clouds), sometimes even sharper than well known L lenses.

I've seen images with it, he resolution is so much better than any competition. I had a Samyang 14mm "coke bottle", it was the worst lens I've ever owned. I sent it right back.

You must be talking the original version the samyang or have gotten a dropped copy.I will say it with a straight face, my samyang 14mm is crisper than most of my L lenses under many circumstances. (tons of distortion though)